CDN-Economy & Related Factors
- Thread starter Ocean Breeze
- Start date
They also want to start at the top because they bin to skool. No interest in learning about the business.
LIE-berals DO NOT WANT high employment and a prosperous population!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is to hard for LIE-berals to bribe and bully a population..................................................
that is comfortable sneering at the crumbs LIE-berals offer us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LIE-berals much prefer MASSIVE DEBTS and social decay............................................
as such conditions give them MUCH MORE scope and opportunity to MESS WITH OUR LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For LIE-beral fun and profit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Energy and industrials lift Toronto stock market, loonie edges higher
No matter how hard JT tries he just can't break our economy away from energy
No matter how hard JT tries he just can't break our economy away from energy
OH CLIFFY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People like Andrew Scheer and Doug Ford will TAKE GOOD CARE OF YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BOOMING INTO BANKRUPTCY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That LOUD BANG we all heard....................................................
was the ego of Our idiot Boy POPPING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As it dawns on him that he will have to run the election ON HIS ECONOMIC RECORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now show the increase the two fake World Wars cost us. The last big jump started in 1979,the year Iran broke their chains and there has been a covert war waged ever since, by the owners of Royal Dutch Shell. We are not getting what we pay for by any means.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/170329/dq170329h-eng.htm
The evolution of the federal government debt illustrates some of the major national and international political and socioeconomic events that have shaped Canada's 150-year history. Over this period, the nominal federal net debt per capita grew from $22 in 1867 to a record high $19,733 in 1997.
1867 to 1967
Chart 1
Federal net debt per capita, 1867 to 1967
Three relatively short periods of significant growth in the federal net debt can be identified in Canada's first 100 years. The first period began shortly after 1880 when the government of the day signed an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway to build the national rail line to the west coast of Canada. The other periods coincided with the two world wars (1914-1918, 1939-1945), during which net debt per capita soared by 516% for the First World War and 280% for the Second World War. To finance Canada's war effort, the government mainly borrowed from Canadians by issuing Victory Bonds and War Savings Certificates, precursors to today's Canada Saving Bonds.
Two sharp declines in net debt per capita also characterized the first 100 years of Canada. The first occurred between the First World War and the Great Depression, in the early 1920s. The second episode coincided with the post-Second World War economic boom, an era of strong, sustained economic and population growth, low unemployment and interest rates, and relative financial stability. Between 1946 and 1958, the federal government net debt per capita declined by more than 40%, the longest sustained net debt decline in Canada's history.
1968 to 2016
The period of sustained economic growth between 1950 and 1970 ended with a number of events in the early 1970s, namely the collapse of the Bretton Woods monetary system, the 1973 oil crisis, the stock market crash and the ensuing stagflation. This period was also marked by the implementation of new important social programs in Canada, such as the Medical Care Act (1966), the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan (1966), the Old Age Security Program (1967) and the Unemployment Insurance Act (1971). In their initial forms, these programs relied heavily on federal government financing.
Chart 2
Federal net debt per capita, 1968 to 2016
The federal net debt per capita increased steadily for 30 consecutive years from 1967 to 1997, fuelled by rising inflation, two major economic recessions in the early 1980s and 1990s and persistent large budgetary deficits. In the 1970s and 1980s, net debt per capita grew significantly, with average annual increases from 1975 to 1987 exceeding 20%.
A drastic shift in public finance occurred following the federal debt historical peak reached in 1997. The government of the day introduced spending controls and measures to increase revenue in order to generate balanced or surplus budgets. Net debt per capita declined for 11 consecutive years to reach $14,951 in 2008, down 24% from the 1997 level. However, this downward trend was interrupted by the outbreak of the 2008 global financial crisis. Driven by large federal government deficits, the net debt per capita grew by 21% from 2009 to 2012. Since then, net debt per capita has declined slightly.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/170329/dq170329h-eng.htm
The evolution of the federal government debt illustrates some of the major national and international political and socioeconomic events that have shaped Canada's 150-year history. Over this period, the nominal federal net debt per capita grew from $22 in 1867 to a record high $19,733 in 1997.
1867 to 1967
Chart 1
Federal net debt per capita, 1867 to 1967
Three relatively short periods of significant growth in the federal net debt can be identified in Canada's first 100 years. The first period began shortly after 1880 when the government of the day signed an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway to build the national rail line to the west coast of Canada. The other periods coincided with the two world wars (1914-1918, 1939-1945), during which net debt per capita soared by 516% for the First World War and 280% for the Second World War. To finance Canada's war effort, the government mainly borrowed from Canadians by issuing Victory Bonds and War Savings Certificates, precursors to today's Canada Saving Bonds.
Two sharp declines in net debt per capita also characterized the first 100 years of Canada. The first occurred between the First World War and the Great Depression, in the early 1920s. The second episode coincided with the post-Second World War economic boom, an era of strong, sustained economic and population growth, low unemployment and interest rates, and relative financial stability. Between 1946 and 1958, the federal government net debt per capita declined by more than 40%, the longest sustained net debt decline in Canada's history.
1968 to 2016
The period of sustained economic growth between 1950 and 1970 ended with a number of events in the early 1970s, namely the collapse of the Bretton Woods monetary system, the 1973 oil crisis, the stock market crash and the ensuing stagflation. This period was also marked by the implementation of new important social programs in Canada, such as the Medical Care Act (1966), the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan (1966), the Old Age Security Program (1967) and the Unemployment Insurance Act (1971). In their initial forms, these programs relied heavily on federal government financing.
Chart 2
Federal net debt per capita, 1968 to 2016
The federal net debt per capita increased steadily for 30 consecutive years from 1967 to 1997, fuelled by rising inflation, two major economic recessions in the early 1980s and 1990s and persistent large budgetary deficits. In the 1970s and 1980s, net debt per capita grew significantly, with average annual increases from 1975 to 1987 exceeding 20%.
A drastic shift in public finance occurred following the federal debt historical peak reached in 1997. The government of the day introduced spending controls and measures to increase revenue in order to generate balanced or surplus budgets. Net debt per capita declined for 11 consecutive years to reach $14,951 in 2008, down 24% from the 1997 level. However, this downward trend was interrupted by the outbreak of the 2008 global financial crisis. Driven by large federal government deficits, the net debt per capita grew by 21% from 2009 to 2012. Since then, net debt per capita has declined slightly.
Now show the increase the two fake World Wars cost us. The last big jump started in 1979,the year Iran broke their chains and there has been a covert war waged ever since, by the owners of Royal Dutch Shell. We are not getting what we pay for by any means.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/170329/dq170329h-eng.htm
The evolution of the federal government debt illustrates some of the major national and international political and socioeconomic events that have shaped Canada's 150-year history. Over this period, the nominal federal net debt per capita grew from $22 in 1867 to a record high $19,733 in 1997.
1867 to 1967
Chart 1
Federal net debt per capita, 1867 to 1967
Three relatively short periods of significant growth in the federal net debt can be identified in Canada's first 100 years. The first period began shortly after 1880 when the government of the day signed an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway to build the national rail line to the west coast of Canada. The other periods coincided with the two world wars (1914-1918, 1939-1945), during which net debt per capita soared by 516% for the First World War and 280% for the Second World War. To finance Canada's war effort, the government mainly borrowed from Canadians by issuing Victory Bonds and War Savings Certificates, precursors to today's Canada Saving Bonds.
Two sharp declines in net debt per capita also characterized the first 100 years of Canada. The first occurred between the First World War and the Great Depression, in the early 1920s. The second episode coincided with the post-Second World War economic boom, an era of strong, sustained economic and population growth, low unemployment and interest rates, and relative financial stability. Between 1946 and 1958, the federal government net debt per capita declined by more than 40%, the longest sustained net debt decline in Canada's history.
1968 to 2016
The period of sustained economic growth between 1950 and 1970 ended with a number of events in the early 1970s, namely the collapse of the Bretton Woods monetary system, the 1973 oil crisis, the stock market crash and the ensuing stagflation. This period was also marked by the implementation of new important social programs in Canada, such as the Medical Care Act (1966), the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan (1966), the Old Age Security Program (1967) and the Unemployment Insurance Act (1971). In their initial forms, these programs relied heavily on federal government financing.
Chart 2
Federal net debt per capita, 1968 to 2016
The federal net debt per capita increased steadily for 30 consecutive years from 1967 to 1997, fuelled by rising inflation, two major economic recessions in the early 1980s and 1990s and persistent large budgetary deficits. In the 1970s and 1980s, net debt per capita grew significantly, with average annual increases from 1975 to 1987 exceeding 20%.
A drastic shift in public finance occurred following the federal debt historical peak reached in 1997. The government of the day introduced spending controls and measures to increase revenue in order to generate balanced or surplus budgets. Net debt per capita declined for 11 consecutive years to reach $14,951 in 2008, down 24% from the 1997 level. However, this downward trend was interrupted by the outbreak of the 2008 global financial crisis. Driven by large federal government deficits, the net debt per capita grew by 21% from 2009 to 2012. Since then, net debt per capita has declined slightly.
POOR STUPID MHZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HE LOVES graphs.......................................................
but CANNOT FIND One..................................................
that demonstrates the connection...............................................
between national bankruptcy.............................................
and LUNATIC LIE-beral spending!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a MAROON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And yet MHz has the AUDACITY.............................
to come here from some third world pest hole........................
to LECTURE US about govt and democracy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Alberta provincial debt was $62.7 billion dollars as of March 31, 2019!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WE SHOULD ASK WHAT HAPPENS....................................................
if LIE-berals and or their IDIOT COUSINS................................................
the NDP and Greenies DO SUCCEED.........................................
in killing the Alberta oil patch................................................
and driving the province into bankruptcy....................................
because POLITICAL WHIM.........................................
has prevented Alberta from selling its most valuable product!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LIE-berals have already driven up perilously close to the debt wall.............................
a couple more fiscal shocks- like a suddenly stranded $63 billion dollar debt.............................
might be enough to drive us FACE FIRST......................................
into that very HURTFUL DEBT WALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If we do hit the debt wall........................................
then ALL THE HOGS and all the special interest groups CAN WAVE GOOD BYE....................................
to the gravy that LIE-berals promised them in exchange for their votes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IN RELATED NEWS...................................................
On August 21, 2019, OUR IDIOT BOY Justin put western contractors on notice..................................
that he expected work to resume on Kinder Morgan pipeline within 30 days!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SO WHERE ARE the media photos of oil workers getting back to work??????????????????????????
Or was Our idiot Boy issuing Fake News yet again???????????????????????????
Looks like ANYTHING Our idiot Boy promises us IS A BIG STALL FOR TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LIE-berals desperately need a NEW SUPPLY of Fake News!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The TSX was crashing, but NOW there is a new batch of some 53 billion a day in QE in the US, maybe here too, and suddenly...back to the upward creep again...
But then today's chart shows technical signs of "back to the slide" again in the very soon to be...
Likely though, the market will be fairly stable for the very near moment ( like it was bouncing UP from the 16000 level the last while, while the peaks were dropping from 1666 ), but after the election...
$53.2 Billion In QE Lite: Fed Concludes First Repo In A Decade Amid Liquidity Panic
Wed, 09/18/2019 - 04:32
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/fed-has-lost-control-rates-again
Fed intervention in repo market a step towards more QE
https://www.ft.com/content/6c9f36e4-da22-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17
But then today's chart shows technical signs of "back to the slide" again in the very soon to be...
Likely though, the market will be fairly stable for the very near moment ( like it was bouncing UP from the 16000 level the last while, while the peaks were dropping from 1666 ), but after the election...
$53.2 Billion In QE Lite: Fed Concludes First Repo In A Decade Amid Liquidity Panic
Wed, 09/18/2019 - 04:32
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/fed-has-lost-control-rates-again
Fed intervention in repo market a step towards more QE
https://www.ft.com/content/6c9f36e4-da22-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17
CARBON TAX REBATE...
Sometime this year, we taxpayers will receive a carbon tax rebate.
This is indeed a very exciting program, and I'll explain it by using a Q & A format:
Q. What is a carbon tax rebate?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to some taxpayers.
Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.
Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen of it.
Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is for you to use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.
Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China?
A. Shut up!
Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the economy by spending your compensation cheque wisely:
* If you spend the stimulus money at Walmart, the money will go to China or Sri Lanka.
* If you spend it on gasoline, your money will go to the Arabs.
* If you purchase a computer, it will go to India, Taiwan, or China.
* If you purchase fruit and vegetables, it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala.
* If you buy an efficient car, it will go to Japan or Korea.
* If you purchase useless stuff, it will go to Taiwan.
* If you pay your credit cards off, or buy stock, it will go to management bonuses and they will hide it offshore.
Instead, keep the money in Canada by:
1) Spending it at yard sales, or
2) Going to hockey games, or
3) Spending it on a hooker, or
4) Beer, or
5) Tattoos.
(These are the only Canadian businesses still operating in Canada . )
Conclusion:
Go to a hockey game with a tattooed hooker you met at a yard sale and drink beer all day!
No need to thank me. I'm just glad I could help.
Sometime this year, we taxpayers will receive a carbon tax rebate.
This is indeed a very exciting program, and I'll explain it by using a Q & A format:
Q. What is a carbon tax rebate?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to some taxpayers.
Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.
Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen of it.
Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is for you to use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.
Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China?
A. Shut up!
Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the economy by spending your compensation cheque wisely:
* If you spend the stimulus money at Walmart, the money will go to China or Sri Lanka.
* If you spend it on gasoline, your money will go to the Arabs.
* If you purchase a computer, it will go to India, Taiwan, or China.
* If you purchase fruit and vegetables, it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala.
* If you buy an efficient car, it will go to Japan or Korea.
* If you purchase useless stuff, it will go to Taiwan.
* If you pay your credit cards off, or buy stock, it will go to management bonuses and they will hide it offshore.
Instead, keep the money in Canada by:
1) Spending it at yard sales, or
2) Going to hockey games, or
3) Spending it on a hooker, or
4) Beer, or
5) Tattoos.
(These are the only Canadian businesses still operating in Canada . )
Conclusion:
Go to a hockey game with a tattooed hooker you met at a yard sale and drink beer all day!
No need to thank me. I'm just glad I could help.
Just came from seeing my financial planner. One of my ETFs ditched 60% of its Canadian holdings in 2 quarters.
Definetly not a sign of confidence in Canada.
Definetly not a sign of confidence in Canada.
With our stagnated economy we are heading for a recession, investment is leaving Canada faster than Trump insults
Gwyn Morgan: Liberals send debt into hyperdrive and 'Generation Screwed' will end up paying for it
In the 2015 federal election campaign, the Harper Conservatives proudly announced a no-deficit budget after years of working to rebalance spending and revenues following stimulus deficits necessitated by the 2008 global economic crisis. Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, behind in the polls when the writ was dropped, announced “modest” deficit spending totalling $25 billion in the first three years, returning to a balanced budget in the fourth. Although this was seen as a risky strategy at the time, the Liberals were rewarded with a decisive majority.
That $25 billion ballooned to $70 billion. And Trudeau’s promise of a balanced budget has been replaced by a $93-billion deficit over the next four years. The NDP and Green election platforms proposed even higher spending. Yet, despite campaigns featuring such a staggering accretion of our national debt, pollsters found that deficit spending didn’t rank as a major election concern for most Canadians. Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer, striving to balance political reality against the dangers of driving the country ever deeper into debt, proposed a $25-billion deficit in the first year moving to a balanced budget in five years. The election results confirm that most Canadians have lost all fear of deficit spending, no matter how large.
At the time of the 2015 election, Canadian economic growth was declining, so stimulus spending was a reasonable policy. Most economists believe that governments should constrain spending in good times to preserve financial capacity for stimulus spending during recessions. But instead of controlling spending during a robust economic period, the Liberals ran huge deficits in their first term and are now planning to greatly increase deficit spending in the second. That leaves no financial room for a recession. Since the last recession was in 2009, the Liberal plan would require 15 years without a recession, a most unlikely prospect. What would motivate the Liberals to risk putting Canadians in such economic peril?
The answer is that government spending is needed to offset a dramatic loss of private-sector confidence. A November 2018 Fraser Institute report stated: “The federal government’s introduction of higher taxes, mounting debt and increased regulation has left Canada a much less attractive place to invest. Crucially, Canadians have increasingly looked to other countries to invest, with the amount Canadians invest abroad rising 74 per cent from 2013 to 2017. At the same time … investment from other countries into Canada dropped a staggering 55.1 per cent.” The World Bank’s “Ease of Doing Business” analysis shows Canada dropped from fourth place in 2006 to 22nd in 2019. And a majority of respondents to a Business Council of Canada survey listed “uncertainty and lack of predictability in regulatory processes” as negatives for investors. That was before the election. The prospect of a profligate Liberal minority government dependent on the even more financially destructive policy positions of the NDP is enough to send even more investors scurrying to the exits.
That economic signals have remained strong while private-sector investment and job creation has been shrinking can only be explained by those billions of deficit dollars. Canada’s economy has become dependent on ever bigger government spending while, at the same time, its policies discourage private-sector investment. As Italians know all too well, the end comes when deficits can no longer be financed, pushing the country over a financial cliff.
Canada has seen that cliff before in the disastrous legacy of Justin Trudeau’s father. During the 15 years Pierre Trudeau was prime minister, federal spending rose from 30 to 53 per cent of GDP. Immense public spending overheated the economy, resulting in runaway inflation. By 1981, Canada’s prime lending rate reached an incredible 22 per cent. The inability to meet skyrocketing interest costs induced widespread corporate and personal bankruptcies. Escalating mortgage rates caused many Canadians to lose their homes. With government bonds yielding 19 per cent, accessing business risk capital was virtually impossible. By the time Trudeau-the-elder retired in 1984, Canada’s national debt had grown by 700 per cent and the country’s international debt ratings had collapsed. We were transformed from one of the financially strongest countries in the world into an economic basket case. It would be two decades before tough fiscal discipline overcame compounding interest payments and began to reduce the country’s real-dollar debt.
The current annual cost of servicing Canada’s trillion-dollar “market debt” (borrowed funds subject to interest payments) is $26 billion.
But as Canada’s debt keeps rising, so will the interest rate investors require to fund it. The $93 billion in Liberal deficit spending together with a modest rate increase of two per cent would take the annual interest cost to more than $50 billion at the end of four years.
Just as the generation of taxpayers that came after Pierre’s reign ended had to pay for his profligacy, the next generation of taxpayers will bear the burden of paying down Justin’s debt. So why do most young Canadians vote for parties promising increased deficits? As Mark Milke has argued, “every generation has to learn about the consequences of excessive borrowing for themselves.” Building an immense national debt is like taking out a huge mortgage, then leaving it for your children to pay back. But not only will today’s young voters have to pay down Canada’s massive mortgage, they will also foot the mounting cost of caring for the aging people who allowed it to happen. Most young voters are oblivious to this reality.
But there is a group working to educate them. They call themselves “Generation Screwed.” Kris Rondolo, 29, the group’s executive director, warns: “over-spending equals debt, and debt is an unfair tax on Canada’s younger generations and those not yet born.” The Generation Screwed website includes a debt clock that shows Canada’s national debt amounts to $18,700 for every man, woman and child and is growing by more than $54 million a day. A “How screwed are you?” link lets you add your share of provincial debt to the national debt. Ontarians are the most screwed, owing $43,200 each. Quebecers come next at $40,700, followed closely by Manitobans. Albertans owe $34,400, just a little more than British Columbians. And now the debt clock will be going into hyperdrive for the next four years.
That $25 billion ballooned to $70 billion. And Trudeau’s promise of a balanced budget has been replaced by a $93-billion deficit over the next four years. The NDP and Green election platforms proposed even higher spending. Yet, despite campaigns featuring such a staggering accretion of our national debt, pollsters found that deficit spending didn’t rank as a major election concern for most Canadians. Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer, striving to balance political reality against the dangers of driving the country ever deeper into debt, proposed a $25-billion deficit in the first year moving to a balanced budget in five years. The election results confirm that most Canadians have lost all fear of deficit spending, no matter how large.
At the time of the 2015 election, Canadian economic growth was declining, so stimulus spending was a reasonable policy. Most economists believe that governments should constrain spending in good times to preserve financial capacity for stimulus spending during recessions. But instead of controlling spending during a robust economic period, the Liberals ran huge deficits in their first term and are now planning to greatly increase deficit spending in the second. That leaves no financial room for a recession. Since the last recession was in 2009, the Liberal plan would require 15 years without a recession, a most unlikely prospect. What would motivate the Liberals to risk putting Canadians in such economic peril?
The answer is that government spending is needed to offset a dramatic loss of private-sector confidence. A November 2018 Fraser Institute report stated: “The federal government’s introduction of higher taxes, mounting debt and increased regulation has left Canada a much less attractive place to invest. Crucially, Canadians have increasingly looked to other countries to invest, with the amount Canadians invest abroad rising 74 per cent from 2013 to 2017. At the same time … investment from other countries into Canada dropped a staggering 55.1 per cent.” The World Bank’s “Ease of Doing Business” analysis shows Canada dropped from fourth place in 2006 to 22nd in 2019. And a majority of respondents to a Business Council of Canada survey listed “uncertainty and lack of predictability in regulatory processes” as negatives for investors. That was before the election. The prospect of a profligate Liberal minority government dependent on the even more financially destructive policy positions of the NDP is enough to send even more investors scurrying to the exits.
That economic signals have remained strong while private-sector investment and job creation has been shrinking can only be explained by those billions of deficit dollars. Canada’s economy has become dependent on ever bigger government spending while, at the same time, its policies discourage private-sector investment. As Italians know all too well, the end comes when deficits can no longer be financed, pushing the country over a financial cliff.
Canada has seen that cliff before in the disastrous legacy of Justin Trudeau’s father. During the 15 years Pierre Trudeau was prime minister, federal spending rose from 30 to 53 per cent of GDP. Immense public spending overheated the economy, resulting in runaway inflation. By 1981, Canada’s prime lending rate reached an incredible 22 per cent. The inability to meet skyrocketing interest costs induced widespread corporate and personal bankruptcies. Escalating mortgage rates caused many Canadians to lose their homes. With government bonds yielding 19 per cent, accessing business risk capital was virtually impossible. By the time Trudeau-the-elder retired in 1984, Canada’s national debt had grown by 700 per cent and the country’s international debt ratings had collapsed. We were transformed from one of the financially strongest countries in the world into an economic basket case. It would be two decades before tough fiscal discipline overcame compounding interest payments and began to reduce the country’s real-dollar debt.
The current annual cost of servicing Canada’s trillion-dollar “market debt” (borrowed funds subject to interest payments) is $26 billion.
But as Canada’s debt keeps rising, so will the interest rate investors require to fund it. The $93 billion in Liberal deficit spending together with a modest rate increase of two per cent would take the annual interest cost to more than $50 billion at the end of four years.
Just as the generation of taxpayers that came after Pierre’s reign ended had to pay for his profligacy, the next generation of taxpayers will bear the burden of paying down Justin’s debt. So why do most young Canadians vote for parties promising increased deficits? As Mark Milke has argued, “every generation has to learn about the consequences of excessive borrowing for themselves.” Building an immense national debt is like taking out a huge mortgage, then leaving it for your children to pay back. But not only will today’s young voters have to pay down Canada’s massive mortgage, they will also foot the mounting cost of caring for the aging people who allowed it to happen. Most young voters are oblivious to this reality.
But there is a group working to educate them. They call themselves “Generation Screwed.” Kris Rondolo, 29, the group’s executive director, warns: “over-spending equals debt, and debt is an unfair tax on Canada’s younger generations and those not yet born.” The Generation Screwed website includes a debt clock that shows Canada’s national debt amounts to $18,700 for every man, woman and child and is growing by more than $54 million a day. A “How screwed are you?” link lets you add your share of provincial debt to the national debt. Ontarians are the most screwed, owing $43,200 each. Quebecers come next at $40,700, followed closely by Manitobans. Albertans owe $34,400, just a little more than British Columbians. And now the debt clock will be going into hyperdrive for the next four years.
business.financialpost.com/opinion/gwyn-morgan-liberals-sending-debt-into-hyperdrive-and-generation-screwed-will-end-up-paying-for-it